My post yesterday about Afghan cricket generated some comments about people’s bewilderment about the rules of the game. This is understandable since the rules are not obvious to anyone who happens to just watch it. For those who would like to understand it and are looking for a quick primer, I recommend my 2006 post on it, followed by this video.
What’s so hard about cricket? I think it is all very succinctly explained by this simple chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Cricket_fielding_positions2.svg
(In reality, I know nothing about cricket. I am reading your earlier post now.)
Cricket is, perhaps, marginally more entertaining then watching the grass grow.
Thanks for that. I think I even understand baseball now.
When there’s Whack Bat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTHll8hULao
Piffle. Nowhere in either your 2006 post or in the video were the esoteric parts of cricket even mentioned. There was nothing about lbw, silly mid off, or what happens if both batsmen end up at the same wicket.
Yes, I omitted them but the link I provided in that post tells you all about such fascinating esoterica!
Cricket shares with it’s cousin baseball this interesting feature. Both games can be really hard to explain to a neophyte.
Those who manage the game of cricket did a smart thing by putting an emphasis on 50 overs/ODI games. For purists, it may not be cricket (pun definitely intented), but if you want the game to become more popular and spread to other countries, 50 overs is far more likely to catch on than three day games.
Baseball is usually completed within three hours, (close to) the same as other team and TV sports -- North American football, world football (soccer), basketball, hockey, tennis, etc. Longer games won’t catch on. Some NHL playoff games have lasted as long as eight hours, and US TV freaks at the possibility of it happening, while CBC in Canada will stay with the games until the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime_(ice_hockey)#Longest_NHL_overtime_games
Snooker did the same as cricket with the “Six Red” game, finding a way to shorten the game. In the standard 15 red game, a frame can take anywhere from fifteen to twenty minutes to complete. To myself and many others, that’s a purer game, but to outsiders it’s long and boring, and to commercial TV, it means ads aren’t possible except through editing and tape delay.
Snooker has been losing a lot of ground to 9-ball pool (a tedious and boring game), and many snooker players have played 9-ball just for the money (e.g. Steve Davis). Frames in the Six Red game are much shorter, making it TV-friendly and more popular in countries new to the game, especially southeast Asia. Snooker has also been using a shot clock to limit the amount of time a player has to make his next shot, but that actually leads to more errors and longer frames.
Back to cricket -- I say let ’em use baseball gloves. Where’s the harm? The players would be far less likely to suffer broken and dislocated fingers. If batsmen can wear helmets and legpads, let fielders wear gloves.
That’s what they say about 10 km indoor speedskating as well. And that’s something I love to watch -- it’s where you can see heroes conquer the world or die.
Not knowing a thing about cricket before this (other than it has funny names for stuff, much like my favorite sport, American football) that was indeed the thing that struck me the most watching the video: Holy shit, those guys catch the ball with their bare hands? Seems, uh, like sort of a bad idea…
I guess the best fielders in cricket have enormous, soft, fleshy hands.